Summary of Zalazar v. Vercimak, 633 N.E.2d 1223 (Ill. App. 1993)
Facts: P went to D plastic surgeon to have the size of the bags under her eyes reduced; D said her could make her look 20 years younger; after surgery, P suffered and needed repair surgery from another hospital; P sued D claiming she had never been informed of the risk of the procedure
P/S: Trial court gave a directed verdict to P on the ground that D had failed to present objective evidence that a reasonable prudent person in her position, informed of the risks, would have refused the surgery.
Holding: T.C. gave directed verdict to D on the ground that P had failed to present objective evidence that a reasonable prudent person in her position, informed of the risks, would have refused the surgery; he relied on the objective standard; Court of appeals reversed, FOR P
Reason: Cases involving esthetic cosmetic surgery differ qualitatively from procedures to address patients medical well being. The reason courts have adopted the objective standard and required testimony of an expert witness is not applicable in cases such as these. The subjective standard should be applied here because no expert can objectively weigh the benefits and risk of such a procedure in determining what a so-called reasonable person would have decided.